Bombay HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail To Man Who Assaulted Cop & Violated Lockdown Orders [Read Order]

The Bombay High Court last Wednesday rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by a father and son duo who were accused of beating up a policeman who asked them to close down their shop in June at around 11 pm at night. Court observed that assault on a public servant on duty cannot be tolerated.Justice SV Kotwal was hearing the anticipatory bail application filed by Khwaja Qureshi and Malang Qureshi who were booked for offences under Sections 353, 332, 188, 269, 270, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, the FIR was lodged by Police Constable Dinkar Lilake. He has stated that at the relevant time, the Police Commissioner, Mumbai had imposed lockdown orders. On June 2, 2020 at about 10:45 pm, the first informant and others remained present on their duty. He was accompanied by Police Constable Padawi. While they were patrolling in the jurisdiction of Goregaon police station, it was observed that in a room at Samata-Mitha Nagar Co.operative Housing Society, Mitha Nagar, Goregaon (West), grocery articles were being sold from residential premises. The informant went there and asked the owner to close the shop. At that time, the Applicant Khwaja was not wearing a mask. He was asked to wear a mask. Khwaja refused to wear the mask and refused to close the shop; and instead, abused the first informant. Khwaja pushed the first informant, snatched the wooden stick, which the informant was carrying and assaulted the informant himself. At that time, the other Applicant Malang, who is father of the Applicant Khwaja, abused him and beat him as well. The information was given to PI Jadhav. He came there. By that time, both the accused had left the place and thereafter this FIR was lodged. Applicant's counsel Advocate Vijendra Kumar Rai submitted that the CCTV footage of the incident is available and none of the applicants is seen assaulting the informant. He emphatically submitted that Khwaja was not present at the spot and he is not seen in the CCTV footage. He submitted that a third person who was unknown to the applicants assaulted the first informant. Moreover, applicant Malang came subsequently and he was trying to disperse the mob and he was in fact helping the first informant. There was no shop and the allegations show that the grocery articles were sold from the residential premises. The CCTV footage does not show that anybody was buying the articles and Khwaja was not present at the spot and neither has Malang assaulted the first informant. The statements of alleged eye witnesses are manipulated and they have not seen the incident, Rai argued.On the other hand, APP Rutuja Ambekar relied on the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, which mentions that there are two independent eye witnesses, namely, Master Gaurav Anand Sawant and Usman Ismail Beg. Both of them narrated about the assault made by the applicants. The CCTV footage was shown to one of the residents, namely, Tushar Satam. He identified both the Applicants in the CCTV footage. APP Ambekar submitted that the offence is serious and such acts have to be discouraged and should not be condoned. Considering the gravity of the offence and the assault mounted on a Public Servant carrying out his duty should be dealt with sternly, she contended.Court observed-"I have considered all these submissions. From the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, it can be seen that there are independent eye witnesses to the incident and they have identified both the accused as the assailants. The CCTV footage was shown to the witness Tushar Satam. He has also identified both the Applicants. Therefore, at this stage, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Applicant cannot be taken into account that the Applicant Khwaja was not present at the spot when the incident occurred. The offence is serious. A Public Servant carrying out his duty in the interest of society was assaulted and this fact cannot be tolerated. Therefore, Applicant Khwaja does not deserve any protection considering the gravity of the offence."However, considering the much lesser role attributed to the Applicant Malang and also considering his advanced age of 70 years, Court was inclined to grant protection only to him. Thus, the application filed by Khwaja Qureshi was rejected. Click Here To Download Order[Read Order]

Bombay HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail To Man Who Assaulted Cop & Violated Lockdown Orders [Read Order]

Nitish Kashyap

Tags